Francis Bacon: A Critique

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ม.ค. 2025

ความคิดเห็น • 43

  • @ThenNow
    @ThenNow  4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Support Then & Now: www.patreon.com/thenandnow
    Sign up to the newsletter: lewwaller.com/newsletter/
    Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/lewlewwaller

  • @SometimesCompitent
    @SometimesCompitent 4 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    Once someone told me they misheard his name as “France is bacon”

    • @donitademao9872
      @donitademao9872 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

    • @AlwaysLearnAndGrow
      @AlwaysLearnAndGrow 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yes and for a number of years whenever he heard someone say “knowledge is power” he would reply “France is bacon” and the person would nod approvingly, and he never understood why

  • @JL-ol8zg
    @JL-ol8zg 4 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    Might want to move that lav mic, I can hear your pharynx.

  • @sebastiaankampers6651
    @sebastiaankampers6651 4 ปีที่แล้ว +16

    This video makes me hungry

  • @Sunfried1
    @Sunfried1 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    It's a dubious claim that emotions guide us; they obviously influence us but to say they guide requires some parsing. Reasons are scrutable and explanatory, or justificatory. Reasons offer clarity. Emotions may be blatant but their inherent subjectivity makes them much less scrutable, and their function is not to explain, merely to exclaim.

  • @theguywhoknowsall22
    @theguywhoknowsall22 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Great video! Very thought provoking, as I believe most people have a "default" correspondence theory of knowledge, which Bacon seems to have as well. Please do a video on William James and Pragmatism!!!

  • @M4ruta
    @M4ruta 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Questing: I understood your comments on the Replication Crisis in social science as being the result of people changing. Do you mean by this that it was not due to faulty methodology in the experiments (as must critics would argue)?

  • @joel.llerena
    @joel.llerena 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Best content on TH-cam!

  • @HariPrasad-uy9dj
    @HariPrasad-uy9dj 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Wittgenstein made important observations on the limitations of language and how we play language games. Having a name for something does not mean it exists. If a lion could speak it does not mean we could understand it. Language, concepts of reality, culture, religion, political ideology are the medium in which we swim like fish in water - all created and formed by human beings, of which we are rarely conscious.

  • @buhdahwee
    @buhdahwee 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Is there any knowledge we can attain that is not filtered through or subjected to the human experience? If we are both the observer and the observed can anything be truly objective?

    • @Enzaio
      @Enzaio 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      I would say the claim that most humans have two eyes, is fairly objective.

    • @hellucination9905
      @hellucination9905 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Rather ask: Why is there a need for "objectivity" in the first place?

    • @IkeOkerekeNews
      @IkeOkerekeNews 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@hellucination9905
      In order to have a baseline on knowledge and agreement to which we can draw conclusions from.

  • @hellucination9905
    @hellucination9905 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The world articulates itself through humans in the form of knowledge. The subject operates as a medium.

  • @VT0412i
    @VT0412i 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Where are you from?

  • @晗晗-r8o
    @晗晗-r8o 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Very like the video, could I share the video to other site in China due to YB is bloced from accessing China if you don't mind. And I will attach the source of origin video site, waiting for your reply :)

  • @mohamedmilad1
    @mohamedmilad1 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Isn't that what Ibn Al Haytham stated in 11th century, he combined mathematical knowledge with physics in his books on optics

  • @KymHammond
    @KymHammond 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Can you open this Post Modernist point up. Interesting.

  • @DoubleRaven00
    @DoubleRaven00 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Nice video!
    You would be more convincing by providing examples or case studies. Scientists who have contributed by using imagination, thought experiments, etc.

  • @raycasbierd
    @raycasbierd 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    There are also philosophers of another type who have laboured carefully and faithfully over a few experiments and have had the temerity to tease out their philosophies from them and build them up the rest they twist to fit In wonderful ways

  • @gamefreak23788
    @gamefreak23788 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I agree with a lot of what you had to say here, and I disagree with some. Yes, knowledge is not entirely external to us because the set of all things in existence includes our beings. We are not just in the universe but we are the universe. However, when it comes to our inquiry of knowledge we certainly do have idols that stain our perceptions; the biases that we have from our human experiences should not be considered knowledge in themselves, but the methods that we use in an attempt to gain knowledge. For instance, say someone has the qualitative experience X, they "feel" X. If we don't have scientific ways of measuring this experience, then it cannot be universalized. However, the truth that comes from this is that "Person Y feels X", not necessarily what person Y would want to convey, that "X is a universal quality about the world". This is something that rationalists often get wrong when it comes to our empirical inquiry of the world.
    I think the problem about epistemology is not that we are undervaluing human experience, but that we implicitly overvalue it from complacency. We live in anthropocentric unconscious mindsets that guide us, but we cannot universalize this as a knowledge more so than a description about ourselves exclusively, not of the rest of the universe.

  • @Mart-Bro
    @Mart-Bro 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Great video, great analysis

  • @Janaesp12
    @Janaesp12 ปีที่แล้ว

    We create and construct technology but we do not create objective truth but discover it. Even though the discovery is subjective in the sense that it involves the self in the act of discovery this doesn't make truth subjective. The terms subjective and objective are the most misunderstood in philosophy and while "subjective" can mean "pertaining to the subject" philosophy cannot be built on "subjectivism" that reality is dependent on the subject or observer. True philosophy is based on realism, but realism doesn't have to be in conflict with creation and self-expression for even those things are based on the objective truth of what it is, regardless of how people individually perceive it. If philosophy or science wasn't based on realism, then it could not lead to universal knowledge--it would only be based on subjective opinions.

  • @goodtothinkwith
    @goodtothinkwith ปีที่แล้ว

    Discovery vs creation needs to be understood in the context of curiositas (curiosity) and the changing place of auctoritas (authority) in the Renaissance. The creation of entirely *new* things was sacrilege for a long time because only God was seen as having the capacity for (capax) creation.

  • @claudiosaldivia5646
    @claudiosaldivia5646 ปีที่แล้ว

    I guess this is the reason that your channel call then and now...

  • @nitinkant6704
    @nitinkant6704 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    I think truth has different dimensions. Like fish can see the rays that we cannot participate that doesn't change the truth of different wavelengths in nature. Knowledge is subjective in the way it does effect everyone in different ways but it's use is objective as it fits every purpose/situation in very objective way.

    • @MGHOoL5
      @MGHOoL5 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      When we study individuals atoms we don't recognize their potential for emerging certain molecules, there is no "Water-ness" in hydrogen or oxygen. Under a certain level of analysis, under certain concepts (i.e. narrative or determined and set context) one can say that indeed there is Water to two hydrogen and one oxygen. This jump is also the jump of physics to chemistry, to biology, to psychology, to sociology, to politics and economics. We wouldn't be able to see the potential politics of physics, even though reductively it could be said that politics originate in physics. And so, Truth, it seems, is not in individual parts, because individual parts hold potential. It is, too, not in grand-narratives, just like seeing Water as the basis of reality and as such don't recognize the identity of the parts, their role, and as such the nature of Water as well. And so, truth resides in-between the thing itself and its connection to lower parts and higher wholes. And so, it is always a matter of context that shapes reality, hence the constructivist nature of truth. Based upon the historical episteme you are living in, your society, your desires and wishes, etc. you biasedly, ignorantly, or pragmatically choose one narrative over another, one context, one concept, one level of analysis over another. This doesn't just shape how you see truth, but also the new questions you pose until a paradigm shift happens and you start "anew". Then, to make matters more convoluted, your society, culture, technology, institutions arts, history, etc. all those that shape what it means to be human are related to this historical creation of truth. And thus, not only do we construct a view of reality, but we go on subsuming such a construction into 'the nature of being a human', and as such get rooted more and more into our conception of truth. We see a sequence of this philosophy unfolding: Kant related truth to transcendental categories of the subject (stage 1 of human truth) -> Hegel regressed even further to a new logic of Being (every presupposition is Being) and so these transcendental truths became one with the Spiritualizing historical, dialectical consciousness (the rational is real and the real is rational. stage 2 of human truth) -> Heidegger focused on the currently embodied, historical, objectified being-in-the-world and its thrownness in the middle of an unfolding past and future with a task of understanding its being (why do I exist? Am I going to die? What is my past and future that explain how I'm becoming?) which leads us to recognize the inherent reality of absence in truth and how privileging presence over it is false (stage 3 of human truth)-> Postmodernism... well, human all too human. Age of ultimate immanence and death of God/meta-narratives. (Posthuman truth).

  • @Creepzza
    @Creepzza 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Great video.

  • @Rico-Suave_
    @Rico-Suave_ ปีที่แล้ว

    Watched all of it

  • @Rico-Suave_
    @Rico-Suave_ 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched 00:01

  • @daveherbert6215
    @daveherbert6215 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Excellent

  • @ProfessorFiore
    @ProfessorFiore 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Your explanations are so persuasive but I must respectfully disagree that Bacon is missing the role of emotion. Just because the Romantics valued emotion or because future philosophy saw emotion as indispensable has no bearing on the wrongness or rightness of Bacon’s concern about how emotion distorts observation. Yes we naturally select certain observations and favor them. Bacons point is not that this proclivity is unnatural but that it does not constitute accurate accounts of the material world. His concerns with how the senses lead us astray is borne out by the discovery of UV light among countless other scientific discoveries that relied NOT on how we felt about light but what observations could be rigorously SEPARATED from human biases and limitations and to that extent be proven factual beyond any further intervention by our feelings or thoughts.

  • @bon12121
    @bon12121 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Good points. Completely disagree. You have a overbearing constructionist approach. Then mention Piaget. Then post-modernism. So many criticism of this approach. Many, many people would be dismayed at this approach.

  • @Scott-et4kd
    @Scott-et4kd 14 วันที่ผ่านมา

    You're using a different world to "criticize" Sir Francis. You need to criticize him on his own terms.

  • @JamesGreener-e3n
    @JamesGreener-e3n ปีที่แล้ว

    I think you'll find Bacon agrees with your critique, if you don't take his aphorisms out of context.

  • @dorukdenkel
    @dorukdenkel 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    You don't give any credit to emotions, idols, and culture of the maker of the camera you record the video. Neither you give any credit to the makers of the technologies used to deliver that video to a TH-cam viewer. How about electricity? Why don't you internalize the enginers' idols and feelings at the utility company? All those people simply know how to make things. What they know is objective and work when you want. How do you explain your arguments against what you actually do?

  • @sinisamajetic
    @sinisamajetic 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I wonder what this postmodernist will say about Trumpism? :D

  • @coracross7903
    @coracross7903 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Bacon has no experiential understanding, but holds presumptions and beliefs.
    There is no evidence of a ready-made world, with a myriad objects, outside the mind.
    The 'human being' exists of (mind) perceptions, thought, feelings, bodily sensations (emotion, passion).
    5.07
    .....'new knowledge and technology is being given to us, but that gives the impression that we as humans are inactive participants'.....
    'Our' mind works from memory and cannot come up with something new.
    Our actions are an illusion, we are not the doer, perceiver, etc.
    Only on a relative level of awareness do we have a role to play, like an actor on stage.
    What we create is 'thought-like' as in a dream.

  • @Kaliops1
    @Kaliops1 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Thank goodness I don't care about humanity this much to try to understand it through some OCD exploration of what has come before.

  • @leonsquared6509
    @leonsquared6509 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Use a different mic - all we can hear is you swallowing. It is a bit gros.

  • @AliTwaij
    @AliTwaij 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Hi mate. Thanks for this but I think you can greatly improve in your style. I feel you are too quickly trying to impose your understanding and become busy justifying it instead of just letting have the persons views and his justifications for his views. Please stop doing that. I think it maybe your ego trying to take control of things. So do try to keep yourself out of the presentation please. You can put your views right at the end. Remember we are interested in the person you are describing primarily and not you. I don’t mean to offend you, just to help.